Omniscience means fatalism.

[Clete]

I cannot remember how many times I've presented any one argument to which people. However, if I were Calvinist I might suggest that even though he was used as an example of how hard it was for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, that either:

1) He did enter the Kingdom of heaven, being predestined among the elect regardless if he obeyed now, or later, or never until the judgment

I would consider that argument weak because it goes against the intended lesson Jesus drew from the experience and would not explain why it told us "Jesus loved him" but it would seem more legitimate than these other anticipated styles of responses:

2) He was not among the elect and "Jesus loved him" was merely an anthropomorphism
3) I could borrow a page from AMR and say it was only Jesus's human nature that loved him, but the Divine nature slated him for hell
4) I could use the Mennosota method of knee-jerk responses about the Sovereignty of God and post from my four favorite proof texts
5) Ignoring the passage is a time-tried favorite and very effective in the long run

At the risk of offending straw men, I have seen all of those styles of responses before, and within some variance they seem to be able to be used regardless of context or the actual question.

That's sounds about right. They either explain how the passage doesn't mean what it says by rendering it a figure of speech that is either meaningless or that means the opposite of what the text says, or they redefine the words in the passage to the Calvinist doctrinal definitions, or they deflect the argument by changing the subject or else they simply ignore the argument entirely and repeat their doctrine as if you've said nothing.

Or some combination or varient of those things.

The point being that nothing anyone ever says or could ever say makes even the slightest dent. You may as well be shooting spit balls at a battleship. The only good being accomplished is the strengthening of your own faith and the edification of those who are already in agreement (which is no waste of time, by the way). There may be the occasional person who is undecided that your argument persuades as well but those are very few and far between here on TOL. The biggest problem is getting anyone to engage the debate. Most around here have taken to simply ignoring good arguments. They just don't respond to them hardly at all and when they do its with the most insipid stupidity imaginable.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Imagine also how hard it would be to teach a particular doctrine, then conclude that you have been teaching a falsehood for years.

Sure! There are tenticals that grow in a thousand different directions that secure people tightly into their particular flavor of doctrine.

It's actually true of all of us. The difference is only in the type and quality of tentical and one's own willingness to acknowledge their existence, evaluate them and to do something about it when you discover a tentical of low quality.

The problem of paradigm blindness is universal and serves to answer your question about whether we can ever lock down our theology and say we've got it all figured out. The answer is, no, we can't. We can, I think, approach this goal but we can never get all the way there. Not on this side of the Pearly Gates.

Clete

 

[Rosenritter]

Sure! There are tenticals that grow in a thousand different directions that secure people tightly into their particular flavor of doctrine.

It's actually true of all of us. The difference is only in the type and quality of tentical and one's own willingness to acknowledge their existence, evaluate them and to do something about it when you discover a tentical of low quality.

The problem of paradigm blindness is universal and serves to answer your question about whether we can ever lock down our theology and say we've got it all figured out. The answer is, no, we can't. We can, I think, approach this goal but we can never get all the way there. Not on this side of the Pearly Gates.

Clete

I appreciate this quote from William Tyndale (it touches a few relevant points):

"And again, a good man might err in many things, and not be damned; so that his error were not directly against the promises that are in Christ’s blood, neither that he held them maliciously: ... and though all be false, yet should I not be damned, so long as I had no obstinacy therein: for the faith that I have in Christ’s blood should swallow up that error, till I were better taught."

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR, you responded to a question today with a post that you had made five years ago. If you aren't able or willing to be able to review your own thoughts on the matter now, why do you expect others to do so and take that seriously? Perhaps God might have a perfect understanding that has no need of correction, but if we do allow ourselves to be ruled by Holy Spirit it remains a possibility that even our explanations of what we thought we once knew might change.

Actually my post was in response to GM, with whom I have been down the same road time and again. He knows this, and I made it clear in my response by providing the evidence of the same.

If I had anything new to add to my previous posts on the topic I would have made that clear.

I get the point that what we believe about this or that can change in our walk of faith and the understanding that comes from it, per the illumination of the Second Person of the Triune Godhead, the Holy Spirit. On this particular matter, said illumination has only strengthened what I plainly provided in my response.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

How does one PROVE something to someone who is so well-established (grounded) in their false doctrine? You believe what you believe and unless the Holy Spirit is successful in getting through the hardness of your chosen belief-system, you will remain in your present state of heart and mind. The same goes for other Calvinists who cling to this false belief system.

Yes I am grounded in what I claim. Nothing therein suggests I am not open to correction. Rather than you usual anti-Calvinist canards, take up the effort commanded in Scripture to provide an answer for your complaints. I have demonstrated in years of posts the ability to interact with you when and if you do so, GM.

The facts at hand are plain. You made a post, one you have often made about our Lord's lament over Jerusalem. You asserted, without substantive effort made to support your assertions that the passage defeats any claim against libertarian free will. You went further to assert no Calvinist has an answer.

Asked and answered again was my response, which argues a contrary view to your first assertion and provides clear evidence to the contrary of your second assertion. Your post was made to Calvinists, not me specifically. I responded firstly because I am an adherent to the doctrines of grace, what is commonly called Calvinism. Secondly, my response was appropriate since you and I have discussed the matter previously. Hence, you really had no basis to claim no Calvinist has provided an answer to you.

You can continue to stridently claim what I believe is a false belief system, thereby consigning me to eternal perdition, but you will not find me doing that in your direction.

AMR

 

[Rosenritter]

You can continue to stridently claim what I believe is a false belief system, thereby consigning me to eternal perdition, but you will not find me doing that in your direction.

AMR

The Calvinist belief system does assign the majority of humanity to perdition without hope of a savior, without the necessity of sin or sinning. If you can understand how it might feel for someone else to "consign you to eternal perdition" then can you imagine others reactions when you assign trillions of others to perdition based on this theology that exchanges the call for repentance and the gospel to the world to nothing more than a divine lottery draw.

Such is the nature of what you say you believe and are well grounded in that if it is true, it doesn't matter if it is preached, taught, or believed. If true, then even if such a doctrine had never been conceived or recognized in the mind of any man, the saints would still be saved and the rest would still be damned regardless of their attempts to seek God, love their neighbor, and repent of their sins. As such, why preach such a thing that is an obvious stumbling block that if truly believed, causes such degree of helpless despair or hatred against our Creator?

You objected to being assigned to eternal perdition on someone's whim, yet this is exactly what you say God has done to trillions. As a real question that I would like to hear your response, what would you do if you were to find yourself before God's throne on judgment day, to be told that you were not individually chosen as a redeemed saint from before the beginning of the world? Don't add anything else into this equation, you are exactly as you are right now today, same thoughts and emotions and everything. The only thing that is changed is that you are at the judgment and he has told you this.

What then? Do you kneel in repentance, or do you not bother because you know it would be worthless without the guarantee of Unconditional Election? What do you do, AMR? Because your answer may determine the difference of whether a belief in Calvinism consigns one to perdition.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Yes I am grounded in what I claim. Nothing therein suggests I am not open to correction. Rather than you usual anti-Calvinist canards, take up the effort commanded in Scripture to provide an answer for your complaints. I have demonstrated in years of posts the ability to interact with you when and if you do so, GM.

The facts at hand are plain. You made a post, one you have often made about our Lord's lament over Jerusalem. You asserted, without substantive effort made to support your assertions that the passage defeats any claim against libertarian free will. You went further to assert no Calvinist has an answer.

Asked and answered again was my response, which argues a contrary view to your first assertion and provides clear evidence to the contrary of your second assertion. Your post was made to Calvinists, not me specifically. I responded firstly because I am an adherent to the doctrines of grace, what is commonly called Calvinism. Secondly, my response was appropriate since you and I have discussed the matter previously. Hence, you really had no basis to claim no Calvinist has provided an answer for you.

You can continue to stridently claim what I believe is a false belief system, thereby consigning me to eternal perdition, but you will not find me doing that in your direction.

AMR

I confidently entrust my faith in the 'Gospel of the grace of God' as Paul calls it. It's the ONLY Gospel that offers forgiveness of ALL our sins, and eternal life, as well. Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Once one hears the Gospel of their salvation and places ALL of their faith in the death, (shed blood of Christ) and resurrection of Christ, they are indwelt, sealed and baptized into the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 1:13 "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise," 1 Corinthians 12:13 "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

Galations 1:8 states: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." I would tend to believe that 'Calvinism' could be considered 'Another Gospel.' If so, Calvinists could have a problem. Paul's Gospel preaches 'faith without works, saves.' Calvinism teaches that God gives faith ONLY to His 'Chosen before the foundation of the world, Elect.' Paul's Gospel preaches that faith is required in order to receive eternal life. Since Romans 10:17 states: "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."


When I read the Bible, I see copious amounts of verses that speak of humanities ability to 'choose' what to place their faith in and the 'free-will' to do so. Calvinists look at that same Bible and do not see that truth. They don't see it because their 'doctrine' will not allow them to see it. I believe God desires that no one will perish. 2 Peter 3:9 states: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Calvinists would look at that verse, and conclude that it's speaking ONLY about the 'Chosen Elect before the foundation of the world.' I believe that verse to be saying that God doesn't want anyone to perish. Christ died for ALL of humanity, however, only those that HEAR the Gospel and place their FAITH in Christ alone will reap the benefits of His death and resurrection. That being, eternal life and forgiveness of ALL their sins.


Do I believe the doctrine of Calvinism leads to 'eternal life' for those who adhere to it? My answer would have to be, I really don't know. That's between the Calvinist and God.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

That's sounds about right. They either explain how the passage doesn't mean what it says by rendering it a figure of speech that is either meaningless or that means the opposite of what the text says, or they redefine the words in the passage to the Calvinist doctrinal definitions, or they deflect the argument by changing the subject or else they simply ignore the argument entirely and repeat their doctrine as if you've said nothing.

Or some combination or varient of those things.

The point being that nothing anyone ever says or could ever say makes even the slightest dent. You may as well be shooting spit balls at a battleship. The only good being accomplished is the strengthening of your own faith and the edification of those who are already in agreement (which is no waste of time, by the way). There may be the occasional person who is undecided that your argument persuades as well but those are very few and far between here on TOL. The biggest problem is getting anyone to engage the debate. Most around here have taken to simply ignoring good arguments. They just don't respond to them hardly at all and when they do its with the most insipid stupidity imaginable.

Clete

Excellent.

 

[Clete]

Yes I am grounded in what I claim. Nothing therein suggests I am not open to correction. Rather than you usual anti-Calvinist canards, take up the effort commanded in Scripture to provide an answer for your complaints. I have demonstrated in years of posts the ability to interact with you when and if you do so, GM.

The facts at hand are plain. You made a post, one you have often made about our Lord's lament over Jerusalem. You asserted, without substantive effort made to support your assertions that the passage defeats any claim against libertarian free will. You went further to assert no Calvinist has an answer.

Asked and answered again was my response, which argues a contrary view to your first assertion and provides clear evidence to the contrary of your second assertion. Your post was made to Calvinists, not me specifically. I responded firstly because I am an adherent to the doctrines of grace, what is commonly called Calvinism. Secondly, my response was appropriate since you and I have discussed the matter previously. Hence, you really had no basis to claim no Calvinist has provided an answer to you.

You can continue to stridently claim what I believe is a false belief system, thereby consigning me to eternal perdition, but you will not find me doing that in your direction.

AMR

Would you concede that your explanation of what the text of Matthew 23:37 means is only valid if Calvinism is true?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Would you concede that your explanation of what the text of Matthew 23:37 means is only valid if Calvinism is true?

Good point. I highly DOUBT he will concede anything.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I believe God desires that no one will perish. 2 Peter 3:9 states: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

God has no unfulfilled desires, GM.

It would be unbiblical to say that God has a divided heart with more than one will (the faculty and power of using one's will). The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God does all His will:

"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it." (Isaiah 46:10, 11)

"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:" (Ephesians 1:11)

"And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (Daniel 4:35)

"Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places." (Psalms 135:6)

"But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth." (Job 23:13)

In other words, all that God desires He accomplishes. Hence, your claim 2 Peter 3:9 teaches us God desires no one will perish cannot mean what you claim it means when taking into account the full counsel of Scripture. We know some actually do perish.

Given this plain fact, and to avoid claims that contradictions exist in Holy Writ, we are required to check what we have concluded the passage is teaching against all that Scripture teaches us about the matter.

We must give proper regard to the language of Scripture when it speaks about God's "desire". Failing to do so results in representing God, not as incompetent to obtain what He desires, but as unwilling to have what He apparently desires and is fully competent to obtain.

There are a multitude of deliverances given in the Scriptures with regard to this subject. Commissions to preach the gospel to all without exception as well as commandments to believe on the name of Jesus Christ and to repent. There are promises to the effect that whosoever will may come, that he who thirsts may drink of the water of life freely, that they who are weary and heavy laden are invited to come to Christ that He might give them rest. We even have examples of the preaching both of the Lord Himself and of His apostles. Surely, if there were such a desire in God with regard to the salvation of all men without exception, that desire would be expressed in those places which have more particularly to do with the gospel offer. Such a desire, however, is not so much as even insinuated by those places.

Accordingly, we are driven back to increase our understanding about what exactly "desire" means in this particular passage and others like it. Clearly there is a difference between what God commands as precepts (rules) that we ought to do as our duty and that which God decrees, what will be done. Such a distinction must never be understood as implying that God has two wills. What will be done relates to the futurition and the event of things and is the rule of God’s external acts. The what ought to be done per God's commands is concerned with precepts and promises and is the rule of our action.

For it is clear from the above definition that the word will is being used in two different senses, i.e., equivocally, having two distinct points of reference. It is only the will of decree which is the will of God in the proper sense of the term, as an act of volition (faculty and power of using one's will) for therein God has decreed what shall be done.

The will of what ought to be done has no volitional content, for it simply states what God has commanded ought to be done by man. Whether man wills to do it is absolutely dependent upon whether God has decreed that he shall do it. So it is quite inappropriate to say that God wills something to be with reference to His will of command, for the preceptive will (what ought to be done) never pertains to the futurition of actions, only to the obligation (our duty) of them.

Had God decreed the salvation of all men, it would be possible to predicate “that God desires the salvation of all men.” Since, however, God has not decreed the salvation of all men—for not all are saved, and what God decrees cannot not happen—but has only commanded that all men be saved, and since God’s preceptive will only commands what ought to be done, the most that can be said is that God desires that all men be under an obligation to be saved.

At most, all that can be affirmed is that God desires that such and such should be done by man, not that God desires that such and such shall be done. Any desire or delight in God with regard to the performance of what He has commanded is entirely hypothetical, or conditional upon the falling out of events in accordance with His foreordination of them. To posit a desire in God that something shall fall out which He has determined shall not fall out is absurdity. This divides God, by introducing contrariety into His nature. It supposes that there are desires in God that are never fulfilled. That God is hoping (wringing His hands, as it were) for something to happen or not happen that He should well know is not going to happen or actually happen. This cannot be so given Scripture's teachings to the contrary.

Bottom line, if one believes that God truly has volitional desires that remain unfulfilled, then one lands where you have landed on the meaning of the passage in question or your earlier appeal to the Lord's lament over Jerusalem. None of these passages are dependent upon one's presupposed Calvinism or anti-Calvinism. Rather, they both and all Scripture for that matter, are dependent upon proper hermeneutical methods to interpret Scripture aright.

AMR

 

[Jerry Shugart]

God has no unfulfilled desires, GM.

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim.2:3-4).​

The god you worship (which is not a God at all) wants all people to come to the knowledge of the truth but yet he he only gives some people a so-called gift of faith!

 

[Rosenritter]

God has no unfulfilled desires, GM.

Hosea 6:4-7 KJV
(4) O Ephraim, what shall I do unto thee? O Judah, what shall I do unto thee? for your goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the early dew it goeth away.
(5) Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: and thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth.
(6) For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
(7) But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

That sounds like an unfulfilled desire to me.

At most, all that can be affirmed is that God desires that such and such should be done by man, not that God desires that such and such shall be done.

That's actually correct after a fashion, as one doesn't desire that something shall be done, one commands that something shall be done.

Any desire or delight in God with regard to the performance of what He has commanded is entirely hypothetical, or conditional upon the falling out of events in accordance with His foreordination of them. To posit a desire in God that something shall fall out which He has determined shall not fall out is absurdity.

The unfulfilled desire is actually biblical as evidenced by "I desired mercy, and not sacrifice..." The mistake is in assuming that God has determined that men cannot and shall not fulfill his desire. God did not decree such failure!

Had God decreed the salvation of all men, it would be possible to predicate “that God desires the salvation of all men.” Since, however, God has not decreed the salvation of all men—for not all are saved, and what God decrees cannot not happen—but has only commanded that all men be saved, and since God’s preceptive will only commands what ought to be done, the most that can be said is that God desires that all men be under an obligation to be saved.

On this I agree, that God has not decreed the salvation of all men, but I disagree as the scripture does tell us that God desires the salvation of all men, he is willing that all men be saved and commanded that they repent.

Acts 17:30 KJV
(30) And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

1 Timothy 2:4 KJV
(4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

I think the apparent contradiction shown here is from the assumption that salvation is by decree ("Unconditional Election") rather than by belief in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31).

Matthew 9:13 KJV
(13) But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Regardless, scripture does tell us that God has unfulfilled desires, as he desires righteousness and the pure heart and that we that have received mercy might also show mercy. I have a question: how is the below parable even applicable, unless God is willing to show mercy to those that he might also revoke that mercy from later?

Matthew 18:32-35 KJV
(32) Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
(33) Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
(34) And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
(35) So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Hosea 6:4-7 KJV
(4) O Ephraim, what shall I do unto thee? O Judah, what shall I do unto thee? for your goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the early dew it goeth away.
(5) Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: and thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth.
(6) For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
(7) But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

That sounds like an unfulfilled desire to me.



That's actually correct after a fashion, as one doesn't desire that something shall be done, one commands that something shall be done.



The unfulfilled desire is actually biblical as evidenced by "I desired mercy, and not sacrifice..." The mistake is in assuming that God has determined that men cannot and shall not fulfill his desire. God did not decree such failure!



On this I agree, that God has not decreed the salvation of all men, but I disagree as the scripture does tell us that God desires the salvation of all men, he is willing that all men be saved and commanded that they repent.

Acts 17:30 KJV
(30) And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

1 Timothy 2:4 KJV
(4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

I think the apparent contradiction shown here is from the assumption that salvation is by decree ("Unconditional Election") rather than by belief in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31).

Matthew 9:13 KJV
(13) But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Regardless, scripture does tell us that God has unfulfilled desires, as he desires righteousness and the pure heart and that we that have received mercy might also show mercy. I have a question: how is the below parable even applicable, unless God is willing to show mercy to those that he might also revoke that mercy from later?

Matthew 18:32-35 KJV
(32) Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
(33) Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
(34) And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
(35) So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Hosea 6:6 "6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

That verse ought to change AMR'S mind about what I posted about 'God's desiring of something.' Having said that, no doubt, he will counter what that verse is saying, and try and 'spin it.'

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Hosea 6:4-7 KJV
(4) O Ephraim, what shall I do unto thee? O Judah, what shall I do unto thee? for your goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the early dew it goeth away.
(5) Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: and thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth.
(6) For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
(7) But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

That sounds like an unfulfilled desire to me.



That's actually correct after a fashion, as one doesn't desire that something shall be done, one commands that something shall be done.



The unfulfilled desire is actually biblical as evidenced by "I desired mercy, and not sacrifice..." The mistake is in assuming that God has determined that men cannot and shall not fulfill his desire. God did not decree such failure!



On this I agree, that God has not decreed the salvation of all men, but I disagree as the scripture does tell us that God desires the salvation of all men, he is willing that all men be saved and commanded that they repent.

Acts 17:30 KJV
(30) And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

1 Timothy 2:4 KJV
(4) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

I think the apparent contradiction shown here is from the assumption that salvation is by decree ("Unconditional Election") rather than by belief in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31).

Matthew 9:13 KJV
(13) But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Regardless, scripture does tell us that God has unfulfilled desires, as he desires righteousness and the pure heart and that we that have received mercy might also show mercy. I have a question: how is the below parable even applicable, unless God is willing to show mercy to those that he might also revoke that mercy from later?

Matthew 18:32-35 KJV
(32) Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
(33) Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
(34) And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
(35) So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Good post. Thanks for the Scripture.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

By the way, AMR since you brought up Ephesians 1:11 "In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,"
you should have added verse 12 of that chapter: Ephesians 1:12: "That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ."



Verse 12 shows WHAT was predestined. That being:
"That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ."

That verse isn't speaking about the Elect, chosen before the foundation of the world.' That is Calvinism.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Not ALL will hear the Gospel and place their faith in Christ. However, it is God's desire that EVERYONE will come to Christ. God created humanity with a free-will of its own.

 

[Rosenritter]

By the way, AMR since you brought up Ephesians 1:11 "In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,"
you should have added verse 12 of that chapter: Ephesians 1:12: "That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ."



Verse 12 shows WHAT was predestined. That being:
"That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ."

That verse isn't speaking about the Elect, chosen before the foundation of the world.' That is Calvinism.

Isn't the inheritance also predestined? The inheritance is eternal life, and that was even foreshadowed in the Tree of Life in Eden.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I mean no disrespect to AMR, however, he does tend to get extremely 'WORDY' and I cannot see myself reading every word he posts. No offence intended. AMR, if you're going to post something to 'Old GM' try and condence it, please.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Hosea 6:6 "6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

That verse ought to change AMR'S mind about what I posted about 'God's desiring of something.' Having said that, no doubt, he will counter what that verse is saying, and try and 'spin it.'

Again, the errors I have described earlier continue to be made.

The desire of God here, has respect solely to what ought to be done by man, not to what is to be done. It relates to the commands of God, His precepts.

So the Lord has revealed that He desires truth in the inward parts of man, Psalm 51:6, and that He desires mercy, and not sacrifice, that is, God desires (commands) that the Israelites show mercy to their brethren in need, and not simply attend to the ceremonial aspects of their religion, Hos. 6:6.

By such statements, we are to understand that God delights in requiring these things from man. Whether or not man shall perform them depends solely on whether God has decreed (volitionally willed) them to be done.

Moving the goal posts to this or that newfound verse is no replacement for actually engaging my earlier detailed response. That you do not desire to take the effort to read it because it is "wordy" does not mean you have not been responded to, GM. It means you prefer to continue to make strident and curt assertions or opinions absent any substantive rebuttals. The discussion is just one-sided at present.

I think I have proper answers for all the verses you care to toss out, and can certainly do my own homework to better inform myself if I do not, but I am not obliged to do the heavy-lifting without some evidence you are willing to do the same. These are sacred topics of importance and they deserve our very best, thorough efforts such that we do not lead others to error in our personal desire for brevity.

If you would rather not engage at the same level, why continue to mention me or implicitly lump me in your frequent anti-Calvinist opinions? After all, I suspect no one doubts where you stand on the topic. My only wish is that you make an honest attempt to substantively explain why you do so that we may all be edified.

AMR